@kiekar Just create a new Whitelist for the WAN. You can add the IPs to the customlist at the bottom. With pfBlockerNG-devel you can add IPs to the whitelist automatically by clicking on the "+" icon. You can use the Adv. Inbound Rule settings, to only allow these specific whitelist IPs to access the mail server LAN IP and its open ports.

https://forum.netgate.com/topic/129365/bypassing-dnsbl-for-specific-ips

The TOP1M feed can be used to whitelist the most popular Domain names to avoid false positives. So it is used to remove popular domains from your blocklist. If you inspect pfblockerNG.log you will see that in action: [ Phish_OpenPhish ] Downloading update11/24/18 11:20:07 | .11/24/18 11:20:07 | . 200 OK11/24/18 11:20:07 | . TOP1M Whitelist: risechma.weebly.com|tw.screener.finance.yahoo.net| ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Orig. Unique # Dups # White # TOP1M Final ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1846 742 211 0 2 529 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 11/24/18 11:20:11 | IPv4 count=13 11/24/18 11:20:11 | In this case it removed 2 domain names from the blocklist.

@atlan Not at the moment; however, when the Unbound Resolver python integration is added, we will be able to do regex blocking amongst many other new features. I have been waiting for the devs to add the python integration so that the package could easily integrate with the Resolver without unnecessary backend workarounds.

Do you have VLANs? If so, make sure that the devices on the vlan can ping and browse to the DNSBL VIP address. There is a "Permit Firewall Rule Option" in the DNSBL Tab which can be used to create a Floating Permit firewall rule to allow your vlan segments to hit the DNSBL VIP address, otherwise the VLANs could timeout when trying to connect to the DNSBL Webserver.

@talaverde said in Still having classic problem of blocked URLs with 'unknown' feed: Even after a completely fresh reinstall, I keep getting unwanted URLs on the DNSBL block list with 'unknown' feed. Here are some examples: wsapi.skype.com static.asm.skype.com consumer.entitlement.skype.com in.appcenter.ms All of these domains above have a CNAME. Is it possible that these CNAMES are in your Blocklists? drill @8.8.8.8 wsapi.skype.com wsapi.skype.com. 2995 IN CNAME client-ws.gateway.messenger.geo.msnmessenger.msn.com.akadns.net. client-ws.gateway.messenger.geo.msnmessenger.msn.com.akadns.net. 59 IN CNAME eus-wsapi.cloudapp.net. eus-wsapi.cloudapp.net. 58 IN A 13.92.27.116 drill @8.8.8.8 static.asm.skype.com static.asm.skype.com. 1657 IN CNAME static-asm-skype.trafficmanager.net. static-asm-skype.trafficmanager.net. 299 IN CNAME nus1-authgw.cloudapp.net. nus1-authgw.cloudapp.net. 52 IN A 40.77.16.143 drill @8.8.8.8 consumer.entitlement.skype.com consumer.entitlement.skype.com. 1969 IN CNAME sconsentit9.trafficmanager.net. sconsentit9.trafficmanager.net. 299 IN CNAME sconsentit903.cloudapp.net. sconsentit903.cloudapp.net. 8 IN A 40.122.44.183 drill @8.8.8.8 in.appcenter.ms in.appcenter.ms. 732 IN CNAME in-secondary-prod-east-us2.prod.avalanch.es. in-secondary-prod-east-us2.prod.avalanch.es. 129 IN CNAME 0e6fa46e-9c94-4256-b449-4f54c1f1e69f.cloudapp.net. 0e6fa46e-9c94-4256-b449-4f54c1f1e69f.cloudapp.net. 47 IN A 13.68.31.193 drill @8.8.8.8 download.windowsupdate.com download.windowsupdate.com. 1303 IN CNAME 2-01-3cf7-0009.cdx.cedexis.net. 2-01-3cf7-0009.cdx.cedexis.net. 239 IN CNAME b1ns.au-msedge.net. b1ns.au-msedge.net. 27 IN CNAME b1ns.c-0001.c-msedge.net. b1ns.c-0001.c-msedge.net. 27 IN CNAME c-0001.c-msedge.net. c-0001.c-msedge.net. 27 IN A 13.107.4.50 grep -r -l "wsapi.skype.com" /var/db/pfblockerng/* When I run this command, these files show up /var/db/pfblockerng/dnsbl_cache.sqlite /var/db/pfblockerng/pfbalexawhitelist.txt /var/db/pfblockerng/top-1m.csv Even if I delete those files and run a reload update, they still show up. They won't go away. I figure out how to keep these from being blocked or show up on the list. it seems like every .skype.com subdomain is being blocked. I've added skype.com, .skype.com and even the subdomains themselves to my whitelist. Still, no difference. Any thoughts? What is dnsbl_cache.sqlite? Is that just a log? The dnsbl_cache.sqlite is a database to show the last blocked event. You don't need to delete that file. And definitely don't need to delete the TOP1M Database (Whitelist). You need to grep for DNSBL events as: grep "example.com" /var/db/pfblockerng/dnsbl/*

Thanks for the tip. I used the developer tool to see the url path. All is fine now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0KOcfGicjM

Ah, yes, that's what I was understanding. I don't know if anyone else would be interested, but I would certainly use TLD blocking with the alternate model (blacklist by default, whitelist desired TLDs, and then process exceptions to the whitelist by adding in specifically blacklisted domains). Generally, I think that would give me a more maintainable list. I assume most of the newer .tlds are junk (at this point in time, anyway). Rather than trying to keep up with that list, I'd rather have the option to define the list of known good (and most widely used), and go from there. Anyway -- just a thought for the future -- maybe others would use that as well. The package is great, thanks for all of the work!

Grimson, I did search. Both via google and in forums and did not see it. Thanks for the link

@ronpfs said in My new pfBlockerNG is showing 100% on the dashboard. That's not right is it?: With DHCP registration checked, unbound restart with every new lease. When you save DHCP settings, it also restart unbound. So it "normal" behaviour to see the 100% in the Widget. At this point I can live without an accurate % as long as nothing else is happening that would cause negative effects. At this point I am going to leave settings where they are and see what happens. Right now I'm getting an accurate measurement of blocking at 22.36% (4,382 of 19,608), and my dns names are showing up in BandwidthD which I expect will disappear at some point and revert to "configure dns to see names" If/when it does I'll decide which is more important, knowing % blocked or resolving names. Roveer

I agree that the RAID-0 could be considered 'overkill'. This is why I originally was using RAID-1. However, I started to see significant performance degradation. Then I learned that INTEL RAID only supports TRIM on RAID 0, not on RAID 1. So, it was more out of necessity. I suppose I could have had separate non-raid SSDs, but I chose to have a single volume, to keep it simple. The extra performance doesn't help. I'm getting a full 1000 MB/s read/write. If I were buying new hardware, I would buy ONE NVMe SSD (non RAID), but I have to work with what I have. After a few weeks with this setup, I've been quite happy with the performance and stability. Now, I'm trying to fine-tune exactly which feeds I add. The biggest performance hit I see now is when I add too many feeds, or the very large feeds (BBC, hpHosts). I think I'm noticing excessive latency with large lists like those. Since I get very few hits on those lists, I've dropped them for now. I may add them back slowly to see if things change.

@BBcan177 Maybe enable the ability for the web server to also run on IPv6 and add AAAA records. @isaacfl said in Does pfBlockerNG work in pure ipv6 environment?: @nogbadthebad When I nslookup adservice.google.com I get: Name: adservice.google.com Address: 10.10.10.1 So there is no AAAA record. ping adservice.google.com gives me: Ping request could not find host adservice.google.com. Please check the name and try again Nothing ever shows in the pfBlockerNg logs though. So probably not going to work very well in an ipv6 only environment. My prior adblocker would always respond with both an A and an AAAA record for blocked sites.

I did the steps to no avail. I have uploaded my unbound.conf and remotecontrol.conf. hopefully you can help me figure out what setting is wrong. 0_1542452701420_conf.zip

Running pfSense 2.4.4-RELEASE (amd64) and latest pfBlockerNG devel and can confirm this same issue. Example: "192.168.10.10 - blops3 udp port" which appears to be one of my NAT port forward descriptions.

Thanks, didn't know Feodo lists were hosted by abuse.ch, too. Bit sad to read, that a simple dist-upgrade causes multi-day failures... our customers would kill us for that ;)

@rico said in How to install pfBlockerNG if you don't want to upgrade to pfSense v2.4.4: Shrew Soft is obsolete, there is not even some official Windows 10 Client. 5 year old VPN client is allowed by IT restrictions but no top of the line and free OpenVPN? Weird company... -Rico Had the same restriction with an financial sector customer (SAP consultants) and told them the same things. ShrewSoft is allowed for some IPSec dial-ins (with chosen cipher suites that are equally old as the software, 3DES and such) or - even worse - guys that stubbornly told me, that they used PPTP(!) to "VPN into that bank customer" - sometimes reality is more satirical as any magazine/show/internet blog you can imagine ;)

chrome dns page is blank

@johnpoz Yup